“One of Congress’ biggest missteps was its failure to adopt an amendment to halt the slaughter of downed animals – livestock too sick or injured to walk - for human consumption,” stated Wayne Pacelle, a senior vice president of The HSUS.   This became a major national issue after the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that a cow tested positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in December in Washington State.  The HSUS, The Fund, and other groups had long warned that abused downed animals are far more likely to test positive for BSE than ambulatory livestock.  


“Had the no-downer policy been in place, the mad cow in Washington would have never made it into the food supply and the economic repercussions for the cattle industry would have been considerably mitigated,” added Pacelle.  The Congress’ work on the downer issue did, however, set the stage for the Bush Administration’s announcement on December 30 of a ban on the processing of downed cattle for human consumption.

In addition to bowing to cattle and dairy interests on the downer ban, the House also caved in to the National Rifle Association’s demand to allow a particularly unsporting and reckless type of hunting: bear baiting.  A free-standing bill to stop bear baiting on federal lands was gaining momentum and had attracted nearly 190 cosponsors when the NRA targeted the measure, causing 26 members to take the unusual step of withdrawing their co-sponsorship for the legislation and leading to the defeat of an amendment on the Interior Appropriations bill.  

“All federal land management agencies tell visitors never to feed bears, but they allow trophy hunters in nine states to set up thousands of dump sites – consisting of rotting meat, jelly doughnuts, and grease and honey – to lure bears to shoot them at the bait sites,” said Michael Markarian, president of The Fund for Animals.  “Besides being cruel and unsporting, this is a blatant and irreconcilable conflict in federal land management policy.  It was sad to see so many members of the House capitulate to the demands of the NRA even though their instincts told them that banning baiting was the right ethical and public safety response.”

In terms of numeric scoring, while there were many exceptions on both sides of the aisle, there was a glaring disparity in scores between Democrats and Republicans.  Senate Democrats averaged a score of 74.3, while Senate Republicans scored a poor 16.9.  House Democrats scored 72.6, with House Republicans averaging just 26.7.  Members of Congress from the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Pacific Coast regions were generally the most reliable supporters of animal protection, while members from the Interior West, Great Plains, and the South were the least supportive.  Members from the Midwest fell somewhere in between.

Nineteen senators scored a perfect 100 (pro-animal on five of five issues) and 16 scored 80, while 34 senators scored zeroes and seven had a low 20.  There were 59 House members who scored 100 (pro-animal on nine of nine issues), with another 47 scoring 89.  There were just five zero scores in the House, but there were 125 House members who scored 11.

The groups are mailing copies of the scorecard to their supporters. The full text is also available on The HSUS’ web site at www.hsus.org/legislation. It is also available on the Fund for Animals’ site at action.fund.org.

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization with more than eight million members and constituents. The HSUS is a mainstream voice for animals, with active programs in companion animals and equine protection, wildlife and habitat protection, animals in research and farm animals and sustainable agriculture. The HSUS protects all animals through legislation, litigation, investigation, education, advocacy and fieldwork. The non-profit organization, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2004, is based in Washington, DC and has 10 regional offices across the country. On the web at www.hsus.org.

The Fund for Animals, with the mission to “speak for those who can’t,” was founded in 1967 by author and animal advocate Cleveland Amory, and is one of the largest and most active animal protection organizations in the world. It has spearheaded some of the most historic efforts for animal protection through litigation, legislation, education and direct rescue. The Fund’s world-famous sanctuaries – including the Black Beauty Ranch in Texas and Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in California – provide hands-on care and a safe haven for thousands of abandoned or abused wild animals including horses, chimpanzees, elephants, mountain lions and coyotes. On the web at www.fund.org.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE       
March 22, 2004

FOR AN EXPLANATION ON WHY THEY WOULD DO THIS:
Rachel Querry: 301-258-8255; rquerry@hsus.org

CITIZENS ISSUE SCORECARD ON ANIMAL PROTECTION GROUPS.

AMERICA - Citizens issued their report today on the successes and failures of the national animal protection groups. Being unable to speak without giggling, at the gull and audacity that these groups must have to bring these points to lite as if they would recieve a positive report from anyone knowledgable, made this interview quite difficult.

These groups have made progress on some fronts, such as to 'pretend' to work together on this scoreboard in which they 'criticized' the congress.  There seems to be no doubt among most people around the nation that they, too have left some issues unresolved.   1, spaying and neutering campaign which began in 1976 is still a problem in every corner of America,  2,Animal abuse prevention, which could have been greatly reduced had they spent some of the money they used to buy luxury cars, condos and exorbitant bonuses  for their top executives  Both of these issues would clearly benefit from actually providing a strong humane education program around the nation in schools, extra-curricular programs,  scouting groups and other youth functions with the nearly $ 1 billion they recieve in donations

“One of the national organizations' biggest missteps was it's failure to live up to most all their promises of  "We can only solve this if you send us money and more money": Of course, the excuse is that there is just so many issues that need to be addressed. Clearly, this arguement could be valid for a period of time, but after 30 or more years of the same begging practices, there comes a time when they should be held responsible for not adopting a more detailed and organized plan of attack so that some of the major problems could actually see resolve, thus allowing for more focus on other problems that could then become successful endeavors of their efforts and our money.

Had the larger national organizations implemented a decent program 20, 10 or even two years ago that would address the problems we face, in a way that would saturate American culture as did litter control, recycling and other social issues of the recent past, we would already see our society moving in a direction more civilized and respected by other nations.

In addition to their complete and total failure to actually provide the services that they have so blatantly bragged of for the past 20 years, they continue to ask for additional funds as the salaries of their top management continue to bloat - all while the animals they claim to protect continue to suffer.

All national organizations continue to gloat on 'their' impressive humane education programs they have available to schools.  Clearly, anyone can make something available to the public or the schools, but until it's properly marketed and subsequently implemented into the schools at some level by the designing party or organization, it cannot be used as a ''feather'' in the cap because, to simplify this arguement, if it's not being taught in schools anywhere by the organizations' staff or volunteers, there is no way for them to claim responsibility or for any outside source to justify or critique it's methods or results.

In terms of numeric scoring, while there were many exceptions on both sides of the aisle, there was a glaring disparity in scores between the various organizations as they continue to view this effort of animal protection as a competition through bickering, name calling, finger pointing and generally loose focus on the continued suffering of the animals in place of feeding their financial gullets and over inflated egos.  The public fell somewhere in between.

Every organization scored a perfect 100 in their views for the future of the animals   (depending on what your personal views are) but still have a horrific - almost total lack of providing solutions they can or will implement in any means or to show any results from their efforts that can't be argued by their 'competition', which in this case is every other animal protection organization.

The groups are mailing copies of the scorecard to their supporters. The full text is also available on The HSUS’ web site at www.hsus.org/legislation. It is also available on the Fund for Animals’ site at action.fund.org. So, the next time you are having a party with educated guests, this would be a perfectly hilarious party topic to get the laughs rolling. (liquor required for believability)

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization.  In 2002, they brought in over $65,000,000 in donations and could afford to pay $7.5 million to their top executives.  But they didn't even have the highest salaries of the top organizations for animals.

The Fund for Animals, with the mission to “speak for those who can’t,” was founded in 1967 by author and animal advocate Cleveland Amory, and is one of the largest and most active animal blah blah, blah, blah.

Of 3,000 non profit groups in US committed to animal protection issues,  donations recieved by the top 13.  Total was   $351,598,690.  That figure does not include 2,977 other non profit organizations and the money they recieved.    Of that $351.5 million + it is estimated that under government rules that require them to donate a minimum of 10% to their charitable cause, ($35million) it's likely that only a small percentage of that truly went to the animals directly, but more likely to other charitble funds - some of which are owned and operated by the same organizations that originally provided the $$.
Clearly, until they begin working together in an honest and respectable means, their efforts will continue to be lost and sometimes wasted in the bickering that keeps the competitive strength going so strongly.